UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-6437



RAYMOND FRANK CHAPPELL,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


GEORGE DEEDS, Warden, Keen Mountain Correc-
tional Center,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-98-817-AM)


Submitted:   September 30, 1999           Decided:   October 6, 1999


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Raymond Frank Chappell, Appellant Pro Se.      Eugene Paul Murphy,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Raymond Frank Chappell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1999).   We have reviewed the record and the dis-

trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error.    Accordingly,

we deny Chappell’s motion for a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.       See

Chappell v. Deeds, No. CA-98-817-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 24, 1999).*    We

grant Chappell’s motion to amend his informal brief and dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.




                                                          DISMISSED




    *
      Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
February 22, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 24, 1999.     Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we
take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See
Wilson v. Murray, 

, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).


                                  2